Appeal No. 1999-0041
Application 08/475,669
data as a particular endian type) that enables systems of
different endian types to share data[,]” (Examiner's Answer
at 4), the examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that the
reference cures the deficiency of Undy.
Because Undy’s Hummingbird processor is a modification of
a conventional, mono-endian processor, we are not persuaded
that teachings from the prior art would have suggested the
limitations of “a conventional bi-endian processor, said
processor being used to execute a plurality of tasks, said
tasks including big endian tasks and little endian tasks; ...
said tasks executing on a task-for-task basis directly on said
conventional biendian [sic] processor ....” Therefore, we
reverse the rejection of claims 2-5 and 18 as being obvious
over Undy in view of James. We proceed to claim 19.
II. Claim 19
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007